If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Are Indo-Aryan people indigenous to the India?

As per the contentious Aryan invasion theory they are not.

Also. the Indus Valley Civilization were Dravidian.

However the linguistic origins of Indo-Aryans and Dravdians do not have much of an overlap which lends credence to a migration of Indo-aryans into Pakistan and north India while pushing Dravidians southwards.

Another thread to somehow justify the conversions to Islam.
No Indo Aryans aren't indigenous. They started coming to India around 3500-4000 years ago . What some of you fail to get is that THERE WAS NO ARYAN INVASION AS SUCH. Aryans emigration occured for a period for around 1000 years and they didn't displace the local population as such and infact got assimilated inside them and although they retained their basic identity but in the process adopted various customs and rituals of the indigenous culture(For instance the Shiva cult).
Therefore drawing parallels with Islamic invasion is completely wrong.
And IVC inhabitants being Dravidians has no proof whatsoever. That's just one theory that used to floated by Dravidian politicians from South to garner non Brahmin votes.
At the time when IVC people existed , Southern India was part of the Megalithic culture which continued for several centuries even after the extinction of the aforementioned civilization. There's no proof that after the decline of IVC , it's residents migrated to South.

There is a concerted effort by Indians to prove that there was no Aryan Invasion and these people always lived in India. Perhaps to show their superiority in some sense.

Linguistic history and evolution proves otherwise though. The languages have followed a converging pattern rather than diverging out from India.

There's no superiority display here.
Aryans did arrive in India from Central Asia but instead of completely eliminating the local populace , they subsumed inside them. Similar process continued to happen in the later centuries as well wrt Indo Greeks , Kushanas , Sakas and Hunas till the time when Turks came.

However the linguistic origins of Indo-Aryans and Dravdians do not have much of an overlap which lends credence to a migration of Indo-aryans into Pakistan and north India while pushing Dravidians southwards.

Don't recall it too clearly, read something long back about the Indo-Aryans having figured out the use of some metal which turned out to be superior to the one in vogue in the Indus Valley. Also something about Aryans having access to horses .

Don't recall it too clearly, read something long back about the Indo-Aryans having figured out the use of some metal which turned out to be superior to the one in vogue in the Indus Valley. Also something about Aryans having access to horses .

There's no proof of Indo Aryans clashing with the IVC People.
By the time Aryans started arriving the harappan civilization was almost finished.

Another thread to somehow justify the conversions to Islam.
No Indo Aryans aren't indigenous. They started coming to India around 3500-4000 years ago . What some of you fail to get is that THERE WAS NO ARYAN INVASION AS SUCH. Aryans emigration occured for a period for around 1000 years and they didn't displace the local population as such and infact got assimilated inside them and although they retained their basic identity but in the process adopted various customs and rituals of the indigenous culture(For instance the Shiva cult).
Therefore drawing parallels with Islamic invasion is completely wrong.
And IVC inhabitants being Dravidians has no proof whatsoever. That's just one theory that used to floated by Dravidian politicians from South to garner non Brahmin votes.
At the time when IVC people existed , Southern India was part of the Megalithic culture which continued for several centuries even after the extinction of the aforementioned civilization. There's no proof that after the decline of IVC , it's residents migrated to South.

Aryans put themselves at the top of hierarchy in India and locals were kept in the lower rungs. When local merchants demanded money for the commodities Aryans took from them, Aryans didnt know what these inferior beings (according to Aryans) were talking about.

Not denying they didnt migrate over many many decades and centuries but the way they treated the original inhabitants has a character of an invasion.

If you define Invasion as sudden and Abrupt only, then what Aryans did could be called a slow disintegration of status of local people in their own lands.

There's no proof of Indo Aryans clashing with the IVC People.
By the time Aryans started arriving the harappan civilization was almost finished.

I am no longer bothered about identity etc and couldn't be bothered who was where first.

Infidelity is as old as fidelity. If a person knows who his father is, he should be satisfied . Going further back and trying to claim some sort of purity and superiority is silly.

The only thing that matters to me is your lifetime - in that span, you respect the land you live in and try and understand and respect its culture and traditions if it's different from what you have been brought up on.

Aryans put themselves at the top of hierarchy in India and locals were kept in the lower rungs. When local merchants demanded money for the commodities Aryans took from them, Aryans didnt know what these inferior beings (according to Aryans) were talking about.

Not denying they didnt migrate over many many decades and centuries but the way they treated the original inhabitants has a character of an invasion.

If you define Invasion as sudden and Abrupt only, then what Aryans did could be called a slow disintegration of status of local people in their own lands.

You have to realize that Aryan emigration occured in many waves with some arriving as early as 1800 BCE. You are talking of Rigvedic Aryans here. According to Upinder Singh (and supported by many famed historians) the people Rigveda talks about were infact the early Aryans who settled in the NW India.
Btw the lady in the question is a Critically acclaimed writer and current HOD of Delhi University.

Please share the evidence. And an acceptable theory please and not some random propaganda by keyboard warriors.

Several scholars have pointed to cultural similarities of the time. There have been artefacts and stone celts found in Tamil Nadu with the same signs as those found in the Indus Valley

Quite a few researchers have theorized that the language inscriptions on Indus valley artefacts has Dravidian roots.

Theres actually quite a lot of literature on this subject. I havent read it since its not really a priority but the research is done by legit unbiased western scholars rather than some desi with an axe to grind. Im surprised actually at you not believing this.

Several scholars have pointed to cultural similarities of the time. There have been artefacts and stone celts found in Tamil Nadu with the same signs as those found in the Indus Valley

Quite a few researchers have theorized that the language inscriptions on Indus valley artefacts has Dravidian roots.

Theres actually quite a lot of literature on this subject. I havent read it since its not really a priority but the research is done by legit unbiased western scholars rather than some desi with an axe to grind. Im surprised actually at you not believing this.

There are similarities because the IVC and the chlacolithic cultures of rest of the India were contemporaries and a lot of trade happened between these two.
In fact the gold in Harappa was imported from the gold mines of Karnataka so obviously there would be a few common features thanks to the flourishing trade which lead to greater people to people contact. But straight up claiming that South Indians are descendents of IVC people is stretching it a bit too far I am afraid.

There are similarities because the IVC and the chlacolithic cultures of rest of the India were contemporaries and a lot of trade happened between these two.
In fact the gold in Harappa was imported from the gold mines of Karnataka so obviously there would be a few common features thanks to the flourishing trade which lead to greater people to people contact. But straight up claiming that South Indians are descendents of IVC people is stretching it a bit too far I am afraid.

Would i be wrong in thinking that the whole caste system was created by Aryans to show their superiority. Afterall the darkest people are at the bottom of the ladder while the lightest skinned people are at the top. Or am off the mark and there is some other explanation

Would i be wrong in thinking that the whole caste system was created by Aryans to show their superiority. Afterall the darkest people are at the bottom of the ladder while the lightest skinned people are at the top. Or am off the mark and there is some other explanation

Is it like in Apartheid South Africa where some Africans were given honorary White Status? Why is it that Light Skinned ended up at the top of the tree and the darkest at the bottom?

Varnashram system that you are talking about was fairly mobile with several groups moving up and down the order. There existed a lot of fluidity among different varnas and the discrimination was minimal (except towards Chandalas but they were a relatively small group).
This continued till Gupta period i.e 6th century. The modern day caste system began evolving after the collapse of Gupta empire with caste rules becoming rigid and inflexible.

Indo Aryans are clearly not indigenous to India. Mostly migrants from West border.

Even Dravidians are not indigenous to India. They too are outsiders.

The original inhabitants are Australoid, Veddoids and Negritos. The true sons of the soil. They have been living in India since their first migration out of Africa.

When Dravidians arrived, they mixed with the Australoid, Veddoids and Negritos. The modern day Dravidians are nothing but a mix of Dravidians who came from outside and the original inhabitants of Subcontinent.

When Indo-Aryans arrived, they too started mixing with Dravidians. Both culturally and genetically. Modern day Hinduism is essentially a mix of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian beleifs.

Caste system only became rigid since Sage Manu wrote the Varnashrama system. Prior to that people could jump from one caste to the other based on their qualities. There is a reason why some Brahmins look like Dalits while some look very Caucasian. The same can be said about Kshatriya/Rajput, Sudras like Jats/Gujjars/Yadavs etc...

Lord Shiva is a Dravidian God. Original Aryan Gods were Indra(Supreme), Varuna, Vayu, Mitra, Rudra etc. When Aryan culture mixed with Dravidian culture, the original Aryan Gods were relegated to being subserviant to the New Trinity of Gods (Brahma/Vishnu/Maheshwar). Lord Shiva had the same attributes of Rudra. Hence they both were combined.

Modern day Indians, no matter which caste they belong to, they all have Indo Aryan + Dravidian + Australoid/Negrito blood in them. The percentages may vary and based on those percentages, the looks might differ. The same goes for Pakistanis/Bangladeshis/Nepalese/Lankans.

You have the POV of a privileged person. Not in terms of money but status and rank. Go and spend few days as a Dalit.

You have 30% of the country which is considered untouchable and at the bottom rung of Hindu religion.... it's a society most probably built by of very early ancestors of people like you and me, who must have forcibly ingrained in them psychologically that their plight is their own fault for their past misdeeds.....

Essentially.... in their minds civilising the uncivilised, laying down rules and structures that ultimately de-humanises human beings whilst retaining complete control for themselves.

Are aryans indigenous? Now why would indigenous people create a structure that dehumanises one part of their society just out of the blue at one point in history ..... unless they were forced to?

You have the POV of a privileged person. Not in terms of money but status and rank. Go and spend few days as a Dalit.

You have 30% of the country which is considered untouchable and at the bottom rung of Hindu religion.... it's a society most probably built by of very early ancestors of people like you and me, who must have forcibly ingrained in them psychologically that their plight is their own fault for their past misdeeds.....

Essentially.... in their minds civilising the uncivilised, laying down rules and structures that ultimately de-humanises human beings whilst retaining complete control for themselves.

Are aryans indigenous? Now why would indigenous people create a structure that dehumanises one part of their society just out of the blue at one point in history ..... unless they were forced to?

Well, they had a class system in England where the privileged were considered superior to the lower classes. Maybe not quite as extreme as the caste system, but it shows it doesn't need to be inflicted by outsiders.

You have the POV of a privileged person. Not in terms of money but status and rank. Go and spend few days as a Dalit.

You have 30% of the country which is considered untouchable and at the bottom rung of Hindu religion.... it's a society most probably built by of very early ancestors of people like you and me, who must have forcibly ingrained in them psychologically that their plight is their own fault for their past misdeeds.....

Essentially.... in their minds civilising the uncivilised, laying down rules and structures that ultimately de-humanises human beings whilst retaining complete control for themselves.

Are aryans indigenous? Now why would indigenous people create a structure that dehumanises one part of their society just out of the blue at one point in history ..... unless they were forced to?

Eagle Bhrata read my earlier post on this. I have accepted that Aryans emigrated from Central Asia . But there are few misconception regarding it. They didn't defeat any local populace instead got subsumed within them.
My debate with Slog is with regards to Dravidian origins of IVC .

Indo Aryans are clearly not indigenous to India. Mostly migrants from West border.

Even Dravidians are not indigenous to India. They too are outsiders.

The original inhabitants are Australoid, Veddoids and Negritos. The true sons of the soil. They have been living in India since their first migration out of Africa.

When Dravidians arrived, they mixed with the Australoid, Veddoids and Negritos. The modern day Dravidians are nothing but a mix of Dravidians who came from outside and the original inhabitants of Subcontinent.

When Indo-Aryans arrived, they too started mixing with Dravidians. Both culturally and genetically. Modern day Hinduism is essentially a mix of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian beleifs.

Caste system only became rigid since Sage Manu wrote the Varnashrama system. Prior to that people could jump from one caste to the other based on their qualities. There is a reason why some Brahmins look like Dalits while some look very Caucasian. The same can be said about Kshatriya/Rajput, Sudras like Jats/Gujjars/Yadavs etc...

Lord Shiva is a Dravidian God. Original Aryan Gods were Indra(Supreme), Varuna, Vayu, Mitra, Rudra etc. When Aryan culture mixed with Dravidian culture, the original Aryan Gods were relegated to being subserviant to the New Trinity of Gods (Brahma/Vishnu/Maheshwar). Lord Shiva had the same attributes of Rudra. Hence they both were combined.

Modern day Indians, no matter which caste they belong to, they all have Indo Aryan + Dravidian + Australoid/Negrito blood in them. The percentages may vary and based on those percentages, the looks might differ. The same goes for Pakistanis/Bangladeshis/Nepalese/Lankans.

vast majority of Indians have very little Indo Aryan heritage , even many North Indians from UP/Bihar/Madhaya Pradesh are basically indo aryanized South Indians. Its only in North West India groups like jatts etc and brahmin groups scattered throughout India there is lot of Indo Aryan heritage some have as much as comparable to North/West Pakistani populations.

vast majority of Indians have very little Indo Aryan heritage , even many North Indians from UP/Bihar/Madhaya Pradesh are basically indo aryanized South Indians. Its only in North West India groups like jatts etc and brahmin groups scattered throughout India there is lot of Indo Aryan heritage some have as much as comparable to North/West Pakistani populations.

Jats were traditionally shudras.
Brahmins and Kshatriyas were the original Aryans.

Jats were traditionally shudras.
Brahmins and Kshatriyas were the original Aryans.

but jatts received their indo iranic/aryan heritage from some other source , from same source Pashtuns and other East Iranics got, Brahmins got from Kalash like Dardic population. Generally isolated populations in North Pakistan/North East Afghanistan are best preserved relics of original aryans.

but jatts received their indo iranic/aryan heritage from some other source , from same source Pashtuns and other East Iranics got, Brahmins got from Kalash like Dardic population. Generally isolated populations in North Pakistan/North East Afghanistan are best preserved relics of original aryans.

Yes Jats has Indo Scythian origins.
Only pure Indo Aryan groups in India are Brahmins , Rajputs and to some extent Baniyas.

vast majority of Indians have very little Indo Aryan heritage , even many North Indians from UP/Bihar/Madhaya Pradesh are basically indo aryanized South Indians. Its only in North West India groups like jatts etc and brahmin groups scattered throughout India there is lot of Indo Aryan heritage some have as much as comparable to North/West Pakistani populations.

From what I have seen, the groups with most Caucasian look are Brahmins/Rajputs/Jatts/Gujjars/Khatris. I may be missing a few. Some from Vaishya/Yadav also have very Caucasian look.

The real upper caste populations are more Caucasian types. But they only form like 10-15% of the population. 85% of population do not have that look. Its a fact.

But Indian population of 130 crores means that there are almost 20 crores of people in India who have the Pakistani look. I am not counting the Muslims in it. They have many among them with the Upper Caste look. These are the people that Bollywood try to show to the world. Reality is very different.

I do not see much difference between a Keralite, Telugu, Kanndiga, Marathi, Oriya, Bihari and UP'ite. They all look the same. Even among them, the upper caste Telugu, Kannadiga, marathi, Bihari etc look similar to other Upper castes from the same regions.

Most of the times, the way you look depends on the caste you are from. There a good overlap here also with the people from lower caste. This thing is very complicated.

From what I have seen, the groups with most Caucasian look are Brahmins/Rajputs/Jatts/Gujjars/Khatris. I may be missing a few. Some from Vaishya/Yadav also have very Caucasian look.

The real upper caste populations are more Caucasian types. But they only form like 10-15% of the population. 85% of population do not have that look. Its a fact.

But Indian population of 130 crores means that there are almost 20 crores of people in India who have the Pakistani look. I am not counting the Muslims in it. They have many among them with the Upper Caste look. These are the people that Bollywood try to show to the world. Reality is very different.

I do not see much difference between a Keralite, Telugu, Kanndiga, Marathi, Oriya, Bihari and UP'ite. They all look the same. Even among them, the upper caste Telugu, Kannadiga, marathi, Bihari etc look similar to other Upper castes from the same regions.

Most of the times, the way you look depends on the caste you are from. There a good overlap here also with the people from lower caste. This thing is very complicated.

The whitest looking indian I ever saw was this old Indian lady she was some high caste hindu, she was really religous and didn't eat eggs. She was from Bombay, i don't what race that makes her.

From what I have seen, the groups with most Caucasian look are Brahmins/Rajputs/Jatts/Gujjars/Khatris. I may be missing a few. Some from Vaishya/Yadav also have very Caucasian look.

The real upper caste populations are more Caucasian types. But they only form like 10-15% of the population. 85% of population do not have that look. Its a fact.

But Indian population of 130 crores means that there are almost 20 crores of people in India who have the Pakistani look. I am not counting the Muslims in it. They have many among them with the Upper Caste look. These are the people that Bollywood try to show to the world. Reality is very different.

I do not see much difference between a Keralite, Telugu, Kanndiga, Marathi, Oriya, Bihari and UP'ite. They all look the same. Even among them, the upper caste Telugu, Kannadiga, marathi, Bihari etc look similar to other Upper castes from the same regions.

Most of the times, the way you look depends on the caste you are from. There a good overlap here also with the people from lower caste. This thing is very complicated.

even in East Pakistan there is no dearth of average joe South Asian types , I would say some 20% people fall in this category. Its only when you cross Indus river these pan South Asian types drastically decrease. I have very deep interest in anthropology of Pakistan and have travelled a lot throughout the country to give a rough estimate.

Indo Aryans are clearly not indigenous to India. Mostly migrants from West border.

Even Dravidians are not indigenous to India. They too are outsiders.

The original inhabitants are Australoid, Veddoids and Negritos. The true sons of the soil. They have been living in India since their first migration out of Africa.

When Dravidians arrived, they mixed with the Australoid, Veddoids and Negritos. The modern day Dravidians are nothing but a mix of Dravidians who came from outside and the original inhabitants of Subcontinent.

When Indo-Aryans arrived, they too started mixing with Dravidians. Both culturally and genetically. Modern day Hinduism is essentially a mix of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian beleifs.

Caste system only became rigid since Sage Manu wrote the Varnashrama system. Prior to that people could jump from one caste to the other based on their qualities. There is a reason why some Brahmins look like Dalits while some look very Caucasian. The same can be said about Kshatriya/Rajput, Sudras like Jats/Gujjars/Yadavs etc...

Lord Shiva is a Dravidian God. Original Aryan Gods were Indra(Supreme), Varuna, Vayu, Mitra, Rudra etc. When Aryan culture mixed with Dravidian culture, the original Aryan Gods were relegated to being subserviant to the New Trinity of Gods (Brahma/Vishnu/Maheshwar). Lord Shiva had the same attributes of Rudra. Hence they both were combined.

Modern day Indians, no matter which caste they belong to, they all have Indo Aryan + Dravidian + Australoid/Negrito blood in them. The percentages may vary and based on those percentages, the looks might differ. The same goes for Pakistanis/Bangladeshis/Nepalese/Lankans.

Very good post . This is what most modern studies point to . The problem with the British/european made made aryan Invasion theory is that , is considers the arrival of aryans (Ancient North Indian or ANI is the correct term) from the North west of India as on e big wave of invasion which simply pushed the Dravidians (more accepted term Ancient South Indian or ASI) downwards.

But the fact remains that the migration happened in small waves of to & fro movements. And at every stage you will find the ANI, ASI , Australoid/Negrito phenotypes mixing with each other to create the hybrid Indian races we see today.

The only pure races that you may find today in India could be the tribals who still retain the original Australoid / egrito genes as they were chased into the forests &/or were social outcasts that their genes didn't mix further with ASI or ANI.

The average South Indian non-brahmin will still have between 30-40 % ANI genes, while the South Indian Brahmins have close to 50 % ASI genes in many cases, hence the dark complexion. In north again the darker looking Indians will have a higher proportion of ASI genes (Biharis, Bengalis, etc for that matter) . SO the highest concentration of ANI can be found in the North western Indians and modern day Pakistanis, irrespective of caste, with the Brahmin and OG Kshatriya groups (not promoted Kshatriyas like in South) will have the highest ANI genes % . W.r.t the Pakistanis/Afghans, the later waves of European (Alexander) and Middle eastern invasions also played the part in the mixing of genes which lead to the super fair complexion and European features you have today.

And like @troodon said, modern day Hinduism is a fusion of the Aryan and Dravidian belief systems. Obviously the Aryan brahmins who were the priestly class thus the most powerful were able to influence how the belief system was set up. Which is why modern hinduism always seems to have an vedic slant.

It is also believed that ,vedic Hinduism being a poorly defined religion , was able to integrate / appropriate the local beliefs of all the Indian lands it went to , instead of say wiping them out like with the abrahamic faiths in middle east or Europe.

So any and every god that came across as the modern religion spread , was added to the hindu pantheon either as avatars of established gods or as their sons/daughters/wives etc.

The best example for that I can find are the two patron gods of South Indians - Murugan/Subramanyan for the Tamils and Ayyapa for the Keralites, both worshiped chiefly by Non-Brahmin, Non-Kshatriya (mostly Shudra) castes. These were the main gods of most of south Indians , and have very few temples dedicated to them outside of our states, especially in north.

Though it is said that Ayyapa == Dharma Shasta and Muruga == kartikeya, it is believed that these were written later to equate these gods to existing ones in the vedic pantheon.

Similarly we have lots of Tribal gods and goddesses in India, who used to be worshiped by the different marital tribes of Kerala who became the Nairs, Ezhavas, Thiyyas and the dalits. We call them as 'kuladevatha' or 'caste - godesses' . Many of them have no place in actual vedic Hinduism. But as our communities were integrated into vedic Hinduism by the brahmins many of these gods and goddesses were appropriated as Avatars of Vishnu, Siva and Shakthi (devi) , while for the dalits , their gods were deemed too lowly and hence discarded.

If you look at many of the tribal / dalit communities and certain Shudra castes (including people of my community) in our states, they still worship gods by the name of Chathan (aka Shaitaan) , Maruthaan, which are considered demons / asuras in Mainstream hinduism.

The closest parallel I found for this phenomenon in the west is in the abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity . The concept/image of satan for Christians is directly modeled on the image of various pagan gods of the middle east which were replaced by Christianity. My guess is that by establishing the older set of gods as demons , they could prevent the new converts as well as successive generations from rediscovering them or going back to the indigenous faiths.

Too much guesswork there my esteemed Malayali friend. Might as well add a few more 'theories' and we will have a perfect script for a Ekta Kapoor directed period soap opera.
Where's my pure Iyangar Brahmin comrade @Sensible_Indian_fan when you need him.